![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Loads of POV and factual errors, my favourite "Jewish philosopher ben Gabirol brings the works of Plato to Spain ", which is tosh. The piece needs a serious Re-write and should fit resemble a better timeline.-- Irishpunktom\ talk July 6, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
The "Muslim occupation of Spain" was an event in 710, not an 800-year process; the Zirids of Granada certainly weren't "occupying" anything. This should be under the title "Timeline of Muslim rule in Spain". - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
Yes, "Spain" is problematic too, because there was no distinction between Spain and Portugal at the time. I suggest Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia (though Timeline of Medieval Iberia would be a better topic.) - Mustafaa 01:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mustafaa, this article should be named Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Muslim Occupation of Spain! The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. Even more, it was frequent for Christians to refer to Islamic Al'Andalus as "Spain" (España or Espanha or Spanya or other variants), meaning a political reality that was different from their own! Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should be called Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. The Ogre 16:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree to choose the roman name for the Iberian Peninsula as it's the most NPOV. As to regarding the ocupation see below. Nuno Tavares 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Most of you already know this.
Proposed: that the article be renamed "Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia".
1) - Most users will be doing a search for Spain rather than Iberia to get information on this historical period. Most books on the subject refer to Spain as in Muslim Spain such as:
etc etc..
2) The whole period is best described as an occupation , not as a rule. The Moors and Arabs were a foreign armed force that invaded and occupied various stretches of spanish territory for periods of time but incrementaly lost all them in time. One could say that they ruled the territory that they occupied , but that rule did not extend to the parts outside of the land they controled.-- Aesed 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that there are two discussions going on here. It's a mistake to debate them together. Leave the discussion about the use of Spain to the sections above, and this section for the use of Occupation. You see, Aesed, the use of occupation may be inaccurate as it may be understood as the process and not the period. You may read, for the current title, either "Timeline of the process of occupation of..." or "Timeline of the muslim presence in...". I'm not sure whether the term presence might work for english readers, but it seems to me to be the best one. Nuno Tavares 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe the use of "occupation" is the most correct as the territory was claimed during the 800 years of occupation by the christians of Asturias. Yes... 800 years is a bit longer than the few years Germany occupied Belgium, Poland or France, but it is still an occupation since there were Christians not subjugated in Asturias that claimed the whole territory. If "occupation" raises eyebrows, my next choices would be "presence" or "control". As for the question of the process and the period, there's already an article named Muslim conquest of Iberia. So I propose a disambiguation at the top of both articles.-- Gameiro 17:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Also France was part of the Roman empire and it isnt discussed in this article. So we need info per country. And maybe we should have a third article about Muslims in Hispania.- Pedro 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This option was added 8/23/2005
Just two notes --i) I agree it can be misleading to reffer to Spain, which can be read as an occupation that did not even exist when it was "occupied". Although Hispania can be construed as meaning Iberia, Spain is clearly a country name. ii) The content is still confused as anyway it centered in the achievement of the kingdoms that latter form spain (mostly Castille and Leon) almost omiting Portugal.-- BBird 17:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
or to put it in a another way -- (a) Timeline of the Muslim (b) Occupation of (c) Spain
(a) ok (with a lot of amendments) (b) Occupation - this can have negative conotation as said above many times. (c) of Spain -- pure nonsense. Spain was never occupied by muslims. When the muslims where ruling the Iberian Peninsula, Spain did NOT YET EXIST.
I removed the Disputed Tag in the beginning of the article, since the problem is not in its contence but the accuracy of the Title. The Ogre 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Just did some expansion and corrections to the article, but I believe it still needs a lot of work done. And I've just realised that this a Timeline of the Reconquista above all things. Should'nt it be named like that? Give me yours thoughts. The Ogre 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this last one makes some kind of media via we can all accept.
I think there seems to be a consensus on "Iberian Peninsula", which is great. The problem is "rule" and "occupation". Muslims didn't occupy the entire peninsula, but they did rule parts of it. I think that is one reason why "rule in" is better than "occupation of", and I think even Aesed could admit that there was some Muslim rule. Si? -- Yodakii 01:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying Muslims ruled the entire peninsula. What I meant to say is that they ruled parts of it. The title "Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula", the way I understand it, doesn't mean rule of the entire area, but it could mean some rule somewhere in it. If the title was "Muslim rule of the Iberian Peninsula", then you would have an argument. By your same argument "Moslem occupation of the Iberian Peninsula" could also mean occupying the entire area which, I think you would agree, they didn't.
I could be wrong about "in" and "of", but that is how I use it. Maybe an English language expert should help here? --
Yodakii 03:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
One more time: Timeline of Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula. I think this title is more accurate and neutral than the current title. If this doesn't work, then here's another idea, taking a que from The Ogre, this can also be called Timeline of Al-Andalus Does anyone have a better idea? -- Yodakii 06:04:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Hey, I guess there are good reasons (namely neutrality) for "Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula", and there is no reason at all against it. Isn't it? Velho 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
So which is it? The article currently uses both terms in a confusing way. We should decided on one term and use it consistently in the article. -- Yodakii 16:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Moors land an inexhaustible supply of soldiers from the population centers of North Africa. Soon the Moors have assembled a massive army and begin moving northward, conquering everything.
too funny. --
Yodakii 04:17:51, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
The
Moorish leader's Address to His Soldiers in 711 is captured in his speech:
*:"In this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and you shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of Allah shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves".
biased.
Following is the entire
speech Tariq ibn-Ziyad gave, (the text in bold is most well known):
"Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but vou, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freelv to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least.
"Remember that if you suffer a few moments in patience, you will afterward enjoy supreme delight. Do not imagine that your fate can be separated from mine, and rest assured that if you fall, I shall perish with you, or avenge you. You have heard that in this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.
"Remember that I place myself in the front of this glorious charge which I exhort you to make. At the moment when the two armies meet hand to hand, you will see me, never doubt it, seeking out this Roderick, tyrant of his people, challenging him to combat, if God is willing. If I perish after this, I will have had at least the satisfaction of delivering you, and you will easily find among you an experienced hero, to whom you can confidently give the task of directing you. But should I fall before I reach to Roderick, redouble your ardor, force yourselves to the attack and achieve the conquest of this country, in depriving him of life. With him dead, his soldiers will no longer defy you."
--
Yodakii 15:08:38, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
I don't think the speech adds to this article, and seems out of place in a list of dates and brief outline of events. If you want to add the speech in another article and link to it, go ahead. -- Yodakii 03:58:00, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
741 - The 10,000 survivors of Kulthum's force arrive in Iberia under a new leader, Talaba ibn Salama; he and the Jordanians settle in Cordoba; Seville gets the Homs contingent; the Damascus contingent settle in Elvira; Qinnasrin in Jaen, and Palestinians in Algeciras and Medina-Sidonia. Civil war erupts between the Syrians and the Iberian Muslims, the latter being supported by a contingent of African Muslims under Abd ar-Rahman ibn Habib.
Can anyone verify this? Were there people called Syrians, Jordanians and Palestians at that time? --
Yodakii 05:29:48, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Dear Irishpunktom: At that time in the Eighth Century there was no Syria to say Syrians like today. Al-Sham was the entire East Mediterranean including Lebanon, Palestine and the actual Jordan. There was no Palestine by definition at that time except in the old historical records as a Roman nomenclature of the East Mediterranean and part of Syria. There was Syria Palestina as a region and even Lebanon was not a nation at that time. The people of the Holy Land were not called Palestinians until the British gave them a name within the nation-State. The modern Jordan is born in the 20th century in a conference meeting between Abdullah Emir of Trans-Jordan and Winston Churchill in 1922. The term Jordanians as a nation does not apply here, until the 20th century when Jordan was created to absorb the Palestinians who were going to be displaced and replaced by the Jews of Europe. In your article, instead you should say Shamites or perhaps refer to the people of the East Mediterranean. But where are the Lebanese in this movement of populations? weren't they interested in the new world of Iberian discoveries? I am really interested in knowing more about this migration.
Archaeologists and anthropologists have a problem explaining the the drop of the Palestinian population in the eighth century AD. This phenomenon is a serious question in the Archaeological agenda that could be explained by the massive migration of people towards North Africa at that time, including the Jews of Palestine. Several family names in Morocco and Palestine have common roots in both countries and the ties are under serious study of genealogy and ancestry. Genetic research could help shedding light on the blood relations between Palestinians and Jews, for peace purposes. Any thoughts?
Noureddine ( talk) 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 74.107.120.220 ( talk) 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Do not you think that, probably, the whole article needs a clean up?
( Threshold 09:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC))
Can anyone verify this?
1609 - Philip III issues the Act of Expulsion for the entire remaining Moriscos population, who are found to to have appealled to the Ottoman Empire for military intervention in Spain and are viewed as a fifth column that is trying to rebuild the Muslim occupation in the Peninsula.
--
Yodakii 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
( Threshold 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC))
So Muslims "Pillage" and "massacre" while Christians "retake", and build universities and Monastries. Nice. This needs some serious NPOVing. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a bad habit by Wikipedia writers of calling their chronology articles "timelines." But a timeline is a graphical representation of history, usually involving a horizontal line crossed by short vertical lines accompanied by dates. Other graphical elements can be involved, such as icons or pictures.
The particular article under discussion here, therefore, isn't a timeline. It is a Chronology and should be retitled accordingly.
67.94.0.46 Fred
There is a larger issue here, noted in my original post to this talk page, namely that the misuse of the term "timeline" is widespread throughout Wikipedia and needs to be changed. So, while I can understand Aesed's displeasure at the unilateral change by Irishpunktom, the change was factually correct and ought to be made a policy throughout Wikipedia. Therefore I'm posting a notice to this article that we are having a dispute over a factual issue here, in this case the issue is linguistic: the use of the most correct word for titling the article. I will now set forth my case--as well as repeat it in the general
Timeline article.
Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Wikictionary
As for the definition of chronology, I don't think that's in dispute. Nonetheless, the Second College Edition, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it as:
Now, given all this, it is clear that we have two different words for two different things and can therefore, when using them properly, clearly distinguish between the two. But some people will counter that language is a changing thing (which it is) and so, given the definitions provided, the meaning of "timeline" may be in transition. Thus, if "timeline" is used to mean "chronology" frequently enough, such as in hip venues like Wikipedia, it will soon come to actually mean that.
And this hypothetical projection into the future is true enough. But if that were to occur it would be an unfortunate development. We would then have two words for "chronology" and no word that would unambiguously indicate the graphical representation of time in a true timeline. Therefore, when we meant this latter, we would have to add an adjective, as in "true" timeline, "graphical" timeline, or whatever. This is needlessly cumbersome.
Therefore I recommend that Wikipedia establish a policy for the correct use of these two terms consistently through the various articles and that editors carry this policy out.
-- 68.49.159.131 Fred
timeline is already used as "chronology", and there is nothing wrong with this. What are you talking about? "timeline" refers to the information. It may be represented graphically, along a line, or in a table. As long as the two can be converted isomorphically into each other, there is nothing wrong with using the same word (and even if there were something wrong with that, we shall still stick with common use). So how would you translate Greek chronology into English? timelore? I am not saying the two terms are exactly synonymous. They overlap. You talk about the timeline of a single process, but about the chronology of several events. But this is semantic hair splitting.
Baad 17:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Year 1485 in ==Castille-Aragón conquers the kingdom of Granada== mentions a castle called Cmbil. This is clearly a mistype. What should it be? Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
On the first map, the picture says 1150 in the bottom left map but the text under it says 1100. Which is it? Or could they be so similar it doesn't matter?
Occupation is clearly the wrong word. An 800 year rise and fall does not constitute an "occupation." The U.S. in Iraq for 3 years is an occupation. Occupation ought to be changed to "rule". Using Occam's Razor, the most succinct way of expressing the article's topic accurately would be Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia.— thames 20:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If there are no further objections, I will move the page to Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. All the best.— thames 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets not start this again. wikipedia is not a democracy!
There were 3 general periods in the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula:
Out of the 3 only # 2 would qualify for the term "rule" . However the overall term occupation fits all 3.-- CltFn 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Timeline of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula → Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia : Please see the above section for reasoning on both sides of this proposal, thanks : — thames 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Iberia 1150.gif, Image:Iberia 1300.gif, and Image:MuslimOccupation.jpg may be deleted soon. The author says he created them... but... to what extent? He had to have source data if these are accurate maps. There is a good chance they are copyvios and we also need sources to justify that these maps are historically correct. Can anyone help provide information on this or alternatives if that fails? We need maps like this... we just need them to be verifiable and free. gren グレン 07:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a major discontinuity between this article and Morisco. The way the Morisco are treated in the two articles you would think they were different people. Someone with better historical knowledge than myself needs to take a look and change one of the articles to bring the accounts into agreement. -- StuffOfInterest 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
PageName → Chronology of the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula – Rationale: After 8 centuries and most of the Muslims being indeed autochtonous to al-Andalus, who had converted to Islam centuries before, you cannot call it "occupation" without going against
WP:NPOV policy. The page has been moved before a few times but there seems to be a couple of users who unilaterally decided against it. (copied from the entry on the
WP:RM page)
===Survey===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
::Support, as per rationale--
Asterion
talk to me 00:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the timeline you will see far too much red links. If anyone can help out by doing the research on any red links that you choose that would be great.-- Aesed 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Something i noticed in the timeline it says in 1502 the moors were expelled. in my reading i have never heard such claims. The only time there was a order for expulsions was in 1609-1614. Is there any sources or refrences to claim there were any expulsion of the moors in 1502? i only know that the jews were expelled in 1502.
Well! I logged on just because I saw a factual discrepancy in the timeline, but after reading the whole of this diuscussion page I can only say, these discussions over occupation and rule have been depressing. I guess the combatants have none been from the Iberian peninsula, but some have for some other reason a great many axes to grind, and they I would welcome to switch to the Spanish wikipedia "reconquista" page, to get an idea of historiography (and even of history!). End of a short aside.
T21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Sebatianalfar
So: to the factual anomaly in the text: Timelines can be useful for some purposes, so I´d be glad if the entries on Jerez could be checked by someone competent: There are three different dates given in the timeline for the final occupation of Jerez by the the reconquista: 1248, 1250 and 1254. See the quotations below from the timeline:
<snip> "1248 (...) *Arcos, Constantina, Huelva, Jerez, Moron, Ronda, Saltes and Segorbe are retaken from the Muslims and will remain in Christian hands thereafter"
(- "retaken" is childish for an interval of half a century, but we´ll let that pass, there are worse things in this page)
"1250 Mertola, Santa Maria del Algarbe , Silves , Tavira , Tejada , Constantina , Huelva , and Jerez fall to the Reconquista and will remain in Christian hands thereafter." (...)
"1264 - Muslim revolt in Andalusia. * October: Alfonso X of Castile takes Jerez." <snip>
So which is right? 1248, 1250, 1254? Can a historian help?
Sebatianalfar 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
i put a "disputed" tag on this page because of the fact that there had been no response to my contribution (three different dates for occupation of jerez). originally i had only made the comment in the discussion page, but there had been no response. that is to say, please do not remmove a disputed tag without reading to the bottom of the discussion page! and please leave the disputed tag until the error is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebatianalfar ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign -- Sebatianalfar 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to keep this title, you have to mention the modern presence of Muslims in the Peninsula after the expulsion of Moriscos.
Mention things like Islam in Gibraltar, the Regulares intervention in the Spanish Revolution of 1934, the Spanish Civil War, the North African Procuradores in Francoist Cortes, Islamic immigration (mostly Maghrebis and Pakistanis), the M-30 Mosque, modern Muladis ( Mansur Escudero and his association)...
Otherwise make clear that it is not about modern times. -- 84.20.17.84 ( talk) 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Editing: I mean; is not wrong as a part("The Muslims were killed") but is wrong as whole. The majority were respeted and stay or left alive; only some part of the Population as the Christian Bishop were killed by some Colognese(or other specific german part of the army, not all) as some flemish cruzaders who acted against the will of the King of Portugal wich was very angry about such amotinate and murdered acts, and also against the majority of Cruzaders wich in majority as well the King Afonso Henriques the First in charge, respected the peacefull agreement with the Muslims and respect all lives.
Source: Osbern`s letter.
When I came upon this page, it bore the following in the article lead:
I haven't been through the page history to see when this was added or by whom, and don't have the time right now to do so. Instead, I replaced the text with the {{ refimprove}} and {{ unbalanced}} templates. I don't know whether there is an active dispute on this page or if the text was added by a dissatisfied drive-by editor, but putting text in the article is not the best way to challenge material. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I added a Factual Accuracy template to this article. As explained in my recent edits, the article is largely unreliable, no references, it´s not a timeline, full of wrong data, and based on old and racial received ideas. I have brought up this in other articles too, the Muslim <> Christian divide/opposition is way overdone, lacking precise data, even stereotyped. Honest readers of this article looking for true information just deserve better! Iñaki LL ( talk) 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As someone already pointed out long ago in this talk page, the Saracen attacks in Italy mentioned in the page (Pisa or Monte Cassino) had obviously nothing to do with Spanish Arabs/Muslims, but with those from North Africa or Sicily. If nothing is argued against it, I'll delete the entries. -- Jotamar ( talk) 00:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
skimming the page I see on the current timeline "1205 – Death of Maimonides in Egypt. Birth of Chaiya bat Avraham Toledano." Who ??? Googling shows lots of refs to 'Society for Creative Anachronism'; and loads of websites that have copied wikipedia ;-) I am editing this out M@T arragano ( talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Loads of POV and factual errors, my favourite "Jewish philosopher ben Gabirol brings the works of Plato to Spain ", which is tosh. The piece needs a serious Re-write and should fit resemble a better timeline.-- Irishpunktom\ talk July 6, 2005 11:16 (UTC)
The "Muslim occupation of Spain" was an event in 710, not an 800-year process; the Zirids of Granada certainly weren't "occupying" anything. This should be under the title "Timeline of Muslim rule in Spain". - Mustafaa 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
Yes, "Spain" is problematic too, because there was no distinction between Spain and Portugal at the time. I suggest Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia (though Timeline of Medieval Iberia would be a better topic.) - Mustafaa 01:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mustafaa, this article should be named Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Muslim Occupation of Spain! The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. Even more, it was frequent for Christians to refer to Islamic Al'Andalus as "Spain" (España or Espanha or Spanya or other variants), meaning a political reality that was different from their own! Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should be called Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. The Ogre 16:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree to choose the roman name for the Iberian Peninsula as it's the most NPOV. As to regarding the ocupation see below. Nuno Tavares 16:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Wikipedia. Most of you already know this.
Proposed: that the article be renamed "Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia".
1) - Most users will be doing a search for Spain rather than Iberia to get information on this historical period. Most books on the subject refer to Spain as in Muslim Spain such as:
etc etc..
2) The whole period is best described as an occupation , not as a rule. The Moors and Arabs were a foreign armed force that invaded and occupied various stretches of spanish territory for periods of time but incrementaly lost all them in time. One could say that they ruled the territory that they occupied , but that rule did not extend to the parts outside of the land they controled.-- Aesed 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that there are two discussions going on here. It's a mistake to debate them together. Leave the discussion about the use of Spain to the sections above, and this section for the use of Occupation. You see, Aesed, the use of occupation may be inaccurate as it may be understood as the process and not the period. You may read, for the current title, either "Timeline of the process of occupation of..." or "Timeline of the muslim presence in...". I'm not sure whether the term presence might work for english readers, but it seems to me to be the best one. Nuno Tavares 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe the use of "occupation" is the most correct as the territory was claimed during the 800 years of occupation by the christians of Asturias. Yes... 800 years is a bit longer than the few years Germany occupied Belgium, Poland or France, but it is still an occupation since there were Christians not subjugated in Asturias that claimed the whole territory. If "occupation" raises eyebrows, my next choices would be "presence" or "control". As for the question of the process and the period, there's already an article named Muslim conquest of Iberia. So I propose a disambiguation at the top of both articles.-- Gameiro 17:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Also France was part of the Roman empire and it isnt discussed in this article. So we need info per country. And maybe we should have a third article about Muslims in Hispania.- Pedro 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This option was added 8/23/2005
Just two notes --i) I agree it can be misleading to reffer to Spain, which can be read as an occupation that did not even exist when it was "occupied". Although Hispania can be construed as meaning Iberia, Spain is clearly a country name. ii) The content is still confused as anyway it centered in the achievement of the kingdoms that latter form spain (mostly Castille and Leon) almost omiting Portugal.-- BBird 17:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
or to put it in a another way -- (a) Timeline of the Muslim (b) Occupation of (c) Spain
(a) ok (with a lot of amendments) (b) Occupation - this can have negative conotation as said above many times. (c) of Spain -- pure nonsense. Spain was never occupied by muslims. When the muslims where ruling the Iberian Peninsula, Spain did NOT YET EXIST.
I removed the Disputed Tag in the beginning of the article, since the problem is not in its contence but the accuracy of the Title. The Ogre 18:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Just did some expansion and corrections to the article, but I believe it still needs a lot of work done. And I've just realised that this a Timeline of the Reconquista above all things. Should'nt it be named like that? Give me yours thoughts. The Ogre 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this last one makes some kind of media via we can all accept.
I think there seems to be a consensus on "Iberian Peninsula", which is great. The problem is "rule" and "occupation". Muslims didn't occupy the entire peninsula, but they did rule parts of it. I think that is one reason why "rule in" is better than "occupation of", and I think even Aesed could admit that there was some Muslim rule. Si? -- Yodakii 01:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not saying Muslims ruled the entire peninsula. What I meant to say is that they ruled parts of it. The title "Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula", the way I understand it, doesn't mean rule of the entire area, but it could mean some rule somewhere in it. If the title was "Muslim rule of the Iberian Peninsula", then you would have an argument. By your same argument "Moslem occupation of the Iberian Peninsula" could also mean occupying the entire area which, I think you would agree, they didn't.
I could be wrong about "in" and "of", but that is how I use it. Maybe an English language expert should help here? --
Yodakii 03:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
One more time: Timeline of Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula. I think this title is more accurate and neutral than the current title. If this doesn't work, then here's another idea, taking a que from The Ogre, this can also be called Timeline of Al-Andalus Does anyone have a better idea? -- Yodakii 06:04:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Hey, I guess there are good reasons (namely neutrality) for "Timeline of the Muslim presence in the Iberian Peninsula", and there is no reason at all against it. Isn't it? Velho 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
So which is it? The article currently uses both terms in a confusing way. We should decided on one term and use it consistently in the article. -- Yodakii 16:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Moors land an inexhaustible supply of soldiers from the population centers of North Africa. Soon the Moors have assembled a massive army and begin moving northward, conquering everything.
too funny. --
Yodakii 04:17:51, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
The
Moorish leader's Address to His Soldiers in 711 is captured in his speech:
*:"In this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and you shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of Allah shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves".
biased.
Following is the entire
speech Tariq ibn-Ziyad gave, (the text in bold is most well known):
"Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but vou, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freelv to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least.
"Remember that if you suffer a few moments in patience, you will afterward enjoy supreme delight. Do not imagine that your fate can be separated from mine, and rest assured that if you fall, I shall perish with you, or avenge you. You have heard that in this country there are a large number of ravishingly beautiful Greek maidens, their graceful forms are draped in sumptuous gowns on which gleam pearls, coral, and purest gold, and they live in the palaces of royal kings. The Commander of True Believers, Alwalid, son of Abdalmelik, has chosen you for this attack from among all his Arab warriors; and he promises that you shall become his comrades and shall hold the rank of kings in this country. Such is his confidence in your intrepidity. The one fruit which he desires to obtain from your bravery is that the word of God shall be exalted in this country, and that the true religion shall be established here. The spoils will belong to yourselves.
"Remember that I place myself in the front of this glorious charge which I exhort you to make. At the moment when the two armies meet hand to hand, you will see me, never doubt it, seeking out this Roderick, tyrant of his people, challenging him to combat, if God is willing. If I perish after this, I will have had at least the satisfaction of delivering you, and you will easily find among you an experienced hero, to whom you can confidently give the task of directing you. But should I fall before I reach to Roderick, redouble your ardor, force yourselves to the attack and achieve the conquest of this country, in depriving him of life. With him dead, his soldiers will no longer defy you."
--
Yodakii 15:08:38, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
I don't think the speech adds to this article, and seems out of place in a list of dates and brief outline of events. If you want to add the speech in another article and link to it, go ahead. -- Yodakii 03:58:00, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
741 - The 10,000 survivors of Kulthum's force arrive in Iberia under a new leader, Talaba ibn Salama; he and the Jordanians settle in Cordoba; Seville gets the Homs contingent; the Damascus contingent settle in Elvira; Qinnasrin in Jaen, and Palestinians in Algeciras and Medina-Sidonia. Civil war erupts between the Syrians and the Iberian Muslims, the latter being supported by a contingent of African Muslims under Abd ar-Rahman ibn Habib.
Can anyone verify this? Were there people called Syrians, Jordanians and Palestians at that time? --
Yodakii 05:29:48, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
Dear Irishpunktom: At that time in the Eighth Century there was no Syria to say Syrians like today. Al-Sham was the entire East Mediterranean including Lebanon, Palestine and the actual Jordan. There was no Palestine by definition at that time except in the old historical records as a Roman nomenclature of the East Mediterranean and part of Syria. There was Syria Palestina as a region and even Lebanon was not a nation at that time. The people of the Holy Land were not called Palestinians until the British gave them a name within the nation-State. The modern Jordan is born in the 20th century in a conference meeting between Abdullah Emir of Trans-Jordan and Winston Churchill in 1922. The term Jordanians as a nation does not apply here, until the 20th century when Jordan was created to absorb the Palestinians who were going to be displaced and replaced by the Jews of Europe. In your article, instead you should say Shamites or perhaps refer to the people of the East Mediterranean. But where are the Lebanese in this movement of populations? weren't they interested in the new world of Iberian discoveries? I am really interested in knowing more about this migration.
Archaeologists and anthropologists have a problem explaining the the drop of the Palestinian population in the eighth century AD. This phenomenon is a serious question in the Archaeological agenda that could be explained by the massive migration of people towards North Africa at that time, including the Jews of Palestine. Several family names in Morocco and Palestine have common roots in both countries and the ties are under serious study of genealogy and ancestry. Genetic research could help shedding light on the blood relations between Palestinians and Jews, for peace purposes. Any thoughts?
Noureddine ( talk) 22:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 74.107.120.220 ( talk) 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Do not you think that, probably, the whole article needs a clean up?
( Threshold 09:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC))
Can anyone verify this?
1609 - Philip III issues the Act of Expulsion for the entire remaining Moriscos population, who are found to to have appealled to the Ottoman Empire for military intervention in Spain and are viewed as a fifth column that is trying to rebuild the Muslim occupation in the Peninsula.
--
Yodakii 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
( Threshold 16:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC))
So Muslims "Pillage" and "massacre" while Christians "retake", and build universities and Monastries. Nice. This needs some serious NPOVing. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed a bad habit by Wikipedia writers of calling their chronology articles "timelines." But a timeline is a graphical representation of history, usually involving a horizontal line crossed by short vertical lines accompanied by dates. Other graphical elements can be involved, such as icons or pictures.
The particular article under discussion here, therefore, isn't a timeline. It is a Chronology and should be retitled accordingly.
67.94.0.46 Fred
There is a larger issue here, noted in my original post to this talk page, namely that the misuse of the term "timeline" is widespread throughout Wikipedia and needs to be changed. So, while I can understand Aesed's displeasure at the unilateral change by Irishpunktom, the change was factually correct and ought to be made a policy throughout Wikipedia. Therefore I'm posting a notice to this article that we are having a dispute over a factual issue here, in this case the issue is linguistic: the use of the most correct word for titling the article. I will now set forth my case--as well as repeat it in the general
Timeline article.
Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Wikictionary
As for the definition of chronology, I don't think that's in dispute. Nonetheless, the Second College Edition, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines it as:
Now, given all this, it is clear that we have two different words for two different things and can therefore, when using them properly, clearly distinguish between the two. But some people will counter that language is a changing thing (which it is) and so, given the definitions provided, the meaning of "timeline" may be in transition. Thus, if "timeline" is used to mean "chronology" frequently enough, such as in hip venues like Wikipedia, it will soon come to actually mean that.
And this hypothetical projection into the future is true enough. But if that were to occur it would be an unfortunate development. We would then have two words for "chronology" and no word that would unambiguously indicate the graphical representation of time in a true timeline. Therefore, when we meant this latter, we would have to add an adjective, as in "true" timeline, "graphical" timeline, or whatever. This is needlessly cumbersome.
Therefore I recommend that Wikipedia establish a policy for the correct use of these two terms consistently through the various articles and that editors carry this policy out.
-- 68.49.159.131 Fred
timeline is already used as "chronology", and there is nothing wrong with this. What are you talking about? "timeline" refers to the information. It may be represented graphically, along a line, or in a table. As long as the two can be converted isomorphically into each other, there is nothing wrong with using the same word (and even if there were something wrong with that, we shall still stick with common use). So how would you translate Greek chronology into English? timelore? I am not saying the two terms are exactly synonymous. They overlap. You talk about the timeline of a single process, but about the chronology of several events. But this is semantic hair splitting.
Baad 17:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Year 1485 in ==Castille-Aragón conquers the kingdom of Granada== mentions a castle called Cmbil. This is clearly a mistype. What should it be? Anthony Appleyard 06:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
On the first map, the picture says 1150 in the bottom left map but the text under it says 1100. Which is it? Or could they be so similar it doesn't matter?
Occupation is clearly the wrong word. An 800 year rise and fall does not constitute an "occupation." The U.S. in Iraq for 3 years is an occupation. Occupation ought to be changed to "rule". Using Occam's Razor, the most succinct way of expressing the article's topic accurately would be Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia.— thames 20:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If there are no further objections, I will move the page to Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia. All the best.— thames 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Lets not start this again. wikipedia is not a democracy!
There were 3 general periods in the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula:
Out of the 3 only # 2 would qualify for the term "rule" . However the overall term occupation fits all 3.-- CltFn 04:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) Seen this already? 06:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Timeline of the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula → Timeline of Muslim rule in Iberia : Please see the above section for reasoning on both sides of this proposal, thanks : — thames 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Image:Iberia 1150.gif, Image:Iberia 1300.gif, and Image:MuslimOccupation.jpg may be deleted soon. The author says he created them... but... to what extent? He had to have source data if these are accurate maps. There is a good chance they are copyvios and we also need sources to justify that these maps are historically correct. Can anyone help provide information on this or alternatives if that fails? We need maps like this... we just need them to be verifiable and free. gren グレン 07:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a major discontinuity between this article and Morisco. The way the Morisco are treated in the two articles you would think they were different people. Someone with better historical knowledge than myself needs to take a look and change one of the articles to bring the accounts into agreement. -- StuffOfInterest 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
PageName → Chronology of the Muslim rule in the Iberian peninsula – Rationale: After 8 centuries and most of the Muslims being indeed autochtonous to al-Andalus, who had converted to Islam centuries before, you cannot call it "occupation" without going against
WP:NPOV policy. The page has been moved before a few times but there seems to be a couple of users who unilaterally decided against it. (copied from the entry on the
WP:RM page)
===Survey===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
::Support, as per rationale--
Asterion
talk to me 00:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the timeline you will see far too much red links. If anyone can help out by doing the research on any red links that you choose that would be great.-- Aesed 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Something i noticed in the timeline it says in 1502 the moors were expelled. in my reading i have never heard such claims. The only time there was a order for expulsions was in 1609-1614. Is there any sources or refrences to claim there were any expulsion of the moors in 1502? i only know that the jews were expelled in 1502.
Well! I logged on just because I saw a factual discrepancy in the timeline, but after reading the whole of this diuscussion page I can only say, these discussions over occupation and rule have been depressing. I guess the combatants have none been from the Iberian peninsula, but some have for some other reason a great many axes to grind, and they I would welcome to switch to the Spanish wikipedia "reconquista" page, to get an idea of historiography (and even of history!). End of a short aside.
T21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Sebatianalfar
So: to the factual anomaly in the text: Timelines can be useful for some purposes, so I´d be glad if the entries on Jerez could be checked by someone competent: There are three different dates given in the timeline for the final occupation of Jerez by the the reconquista: 1248, 1250 and 1254. See the quotations below from the timeline:
<snip> "1248 (...) *Arcos, Constantina, Huelva, Jerez, Moron, Ronda, Saltes and Segorbe are retaken from the Muslims and will remain in Christian hands thereafter"
(- "retaken" is childish for an interval of half a century, but we´ll let that pass, there are worse things in this page)
"1250 Mertola, Santa Maria del Algarbe , Silves , Tavira , Tejada , Constantina , Huelva , and Jerez fall to the Reconquista and will remain in Christian hands thereafter." (...)
"1264 - Muslim revolt in Andalusia. * October: Alfonso X of Castile takes Jerez." <snip>
So which is right? 1248, 1250, 1254? Can a historian help?
Sebatianalfar 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
i put a "disputed" tag on this page because of the fact that there had been no response to my contribution (three different dates for occupation of jerez). originally i had only made the comment in the discussion page, but there had been no response. that is to say, please do not remmove a disputed tag without reading to the bottom of the discussion page! and please leave the disputed tag until the error is resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebatianalfar ( talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) sorry, forgot to sign -- Sebatianalfar 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to keep this title, you have to mention the modern presence of Muslims in the Peninsula after the expulsion of Moriscos.
Mention things like Islam in Gibraltar, the Regulares intervention in the Spanish Revolution of 1934, the Spanish Civil War, the North African Procuradores in Francoist Cortes, Islamic immigration (mostly Maghrebis and Pakistanis), the M-30 Mosque, modern Muladis ( Mansur Escudero and his association)...
Otherwise make clear that it is not about modern times. -- 84.20.17.84 ( talk) 11:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Editing: I mean; is not wrong as a part("The Muslims were killed") but is wrong as whole. The majority were respeted and stay or left alive; only some part of the Population as the Christian Bishop were killed by some Colognese(or other specific german part of the army, not all) as some flemish cruzaders who acted against the will of the King of Portugal wich was very angry about such amotinate and murdered acts, and also against the majority of Cruzaders wich in majority as well the King Afonso Henriques the First in charge, respected the peacefull agreement with the Muslims and respect all lives.
Source: Osbern`s letter.
When I came upon this page, it bore the following in the article lead:
I haven't been through the page history to see when this was added or by whom, and don't have the time right now to do so. Instead, I replaced the text with the {{ refimprove}} and {{ unbalanced}} templates. I don't know whether there is an active dispute on this page or if the text was added by a dissatisfied drive-by editor, but putting text in the article is not the best way to challenge material. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I added a Factual Accuracy template to this article. As explained in my recent edits, the article is largely unreliable, no references, it´s not a timeline, full of wrong data, and based on old and racial received ideas. I have brought up this in other articles too, the Muslim <> Christian divide/opposition is way overdone, lacking precise data, even stereotyped. Honest readers of this article looking for true information just deserve better! Iñaki LL ( talk) 06:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
As someone already pointed out long ago in this talk page, the Saracen attacks in Italy mentioned in the page (Pisa or Monte Cassino) had obviously nothing to do with Spanish Arabs/Muslims, but with those from North Africa or Sicily. If nothing is argued against it, I'll delete the entries. -- Jotamar ( talk) 00:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
skimming the page I see on the current timeline "1205 – Death of Maimonides in Egypt. Birth of Chaiya bat Avraham Toledano." Who ??? Googling shows lots of refs to 'Society for Creative Anachronism'; and loads of websites that have copied wikipedia ;-) I am editing this out M@T arragano ( talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)